Road Conditions and Spending by State: Are Taxpayers Getting Smoother Roads for Their Money?

States are spending historic amounts on highways, boosted by new Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) dollars, yet many drivers still hit the same potholes and rough pavement every day. MoneyGeek analyzed the latest Highway Statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation to rank every state's road quality, compare capital outlay per lane mile and test whether bigger budgets are actually buying smoother roads.

The answer is surprising: after accounting for how much traffic each state's network carries, there is no statistical correlation between spending per lane mile and road quality. Some of the highest-spending states still have rough roads, while several lower-spending states deliver relatively smooth pavement. That disconnect has real costs for drivers, who pay hundreds of dollars a year in extra vehicle operating costs when roads are in poor condition.

MoneyGeek created a Road Roughness Index by combining Federal Highway Administration international roughness index (IRI) data across Interstate, arterial and collector roads in rural and urban areas. Under FHWA standards, roads with IRI under 95 inches per mile are "good," 95 to 170 "acceptable" and above 170 "poor."

These states have the highest roughness scores and the largest shares of lane-miles in poor condition.

*Spending Rank shows spending intensity (1 = highest per mile, 50 = lowest) and does not factor into road quality ranking.

California ranks worst on this index with a roughness score of 153.4 and more than 40% of lane-miles in poor condition, even as it sits near the middle of the pack on spending per lane mile at just under $20,000. The state's $24 billion annual highway budget (the nation's largest in absolute terms) isn't translating into smooth pavement for drivers. California drivers dealing with rough roads may want to compare insurance rates in the state to ensure adequate coverage for vehicle damage.

Rhode Island illustrates the "spending paradox" most starkly. The state spends $35,087 per lane mile, ranking 20th-highest in the nation, yet still has the second-worst roads with 36% in poor condition. Nebraska, the third-worst for road quality, spends even more at $37,166 per mile.

These states offer the smoothest rides, with low shares of poor roads and high shares in good condition.

*Spending Rank shows spending intensity (1 = highest per mile, 50 = lowest) and does not factor into road quality ranking.

New Hampshire ranks first for road quality with a roughness index of 75.1 and just 5% of roads in poor condition. The state achieves this while spending $18,658 per lane mile, less than Rhode Island spends per mile yet delivering roads that rank 48 positions higher. With 78% of roads rated "good," New Hampshire demonstrates that efficient, targeted spending can matter as much as total dollars.

Our analysis reveals notable contrasts in how effectively states convert infrastructure dollars into smooth pavement. Some states achieve top-tier quality with below-average spending, while others spend heavily yet struggle with deteriorating roads.

Efficiency Winners: Best Quality, Lowest Spending

Three states stand out for delivering exceptional road quality while ranking near the bottom for spending per lane mile:

Georgia spends just $16,000 per lane mile (47th in the nation) yet ranks third for road quality with only 4% of roads in poor condition. This efficiency stands in stark contrast to states spending twice as much per mile with far worse results.

Efficiency Losers: High Spending, Poor Results

On the opposite end, several high-spending states fail to deliver quality proportional to their investment:

Alaska's spending of $103,739 per lane mile dwarfs every other state (nearly 3 times the national average) yet the state ranks just 36th for road quality. West Virginia ranks second in spending at $81,566 per mile but 34th for quality.

Rough roads aren't just an inconvenience. They're a recurring cost that shows up in vehicle repair bills and gas station receipts.

Transportation research groups estimate that driving on deteriorated urban roads adds around $400 a year in extra vehicle operating costs for the average driver, according to TRIP and pavement engineering studies. Drivers in the most congested metropolitan areas can pay costs up to around $700 annually. AAA reports pothole damage alone cost drivers $26.5 billion in repairs in 2021, with individual repairs often costing hundreds of dollars. While liability coverage is required, comprehensive coverage can protect against road hazards like debris and falling objects. Those costs come from:

• More frequent repairs to suspension, steering and alignment systems
• Faster tire wear and more frequent replacement
• Increased fuel consumption on bumpy, stop-and-go routes
• Accelerated vehicle depreciation from road-related damage

These maintenance costs compound over time, especially in states where rough roads accelerate vehicle wear.

The $400 national average masks significant state variation. Drivers in California, with 42% of roads in poor condition, see costs toward the high end of the range. New Hampshire drivers benefit from roads that are 78% rated good, keeping their vehicle operating costs lower.

For drivers in states with a high share of poor roads, these added costs stack on top of the usual expenses of car ownership like gas, registration, maintenance and insurance. Drivers may want to consider collision coverage that can help pay for damage from potholes and road hazards, and compare auto insurance quotes to balance stronger protection with an affordable premium.

The economic impact extends beyond individual drivers. Freight carriers pay higher maintenance costs and slower delivery times on deteriorating roads, costs that get passed through to consumers. "For states and localities lacking the necessary funding or commitment to improving roadway infrastructure, economic growth stalls, as infrastructure is a key metric and driving factor for business and industry growth," Golden notes. "Infrastructure was quoted as a driving factor in Amazon's decision to select their second headquarter location."

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed in late 2021, committed roughly $550 billion in new federal infrastructure spending, including major increases in formula and grant funding for highways and bridges. Three years into that rollout, the question becomes: will this generational investment change the spending-quality discrepancies MoneyGeek's analysis reveals?

Most state-reported pavement condition data used in this analysis reflect the early years of IIJA implementation, before the full impact of funded projects appears in roughness metrics. Many projects remain in design or early construction phases, meaning the infrastructure bill's effects on road quality won't be fully visible for several more years.

MoneyGeek's finding that high-spending states don't show systematically better pavement highlights a key accountability question for the coming decade: will new federal dollars break states out of the "maintenance-only" cycle and deliver visibly smoother roads, or will additional funding simply slow the rate of decline in states already struggling with quality?

The states that already demonstrate efficiency (converting relatively low spending per mile into high-quality roads) offer potential models. Georgia, New Hampshire and Alabama show that strong preventive maintenance and data-driven asset management can deliver results without topping spending charts. States spending heavily with poor results get sharper questions about whether more money alone solves the problem or whether systemic changes in how funds are deployed are needed.

Tracking future editions of Highway Statistics against IIJA outlays will be central to assessing whether taxpayers see measurable returns from this infrastructure investment. As Golden emphasizes, "While improving infrastructure stimulates the economy, there must be a plan and strategy to preserve, maintain and protect this investment."

MoneyGeek ranked state road conditions and highway infrastructure spending using 2023 data from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Highway Statistics series.

Road Roughness Index. We created a composite roughness score by weighting each category of measured pavement roughness from FHWA's international roughness index (IRI) data. Our analysis focused on urban Interstate, other freeways and expressways, and principal arterials. Each IRI category (under 60, 60 to 94, 95 to 119, 120 to 144, 145 to 170, 171 to 194, 195 to 220, over 220) was assigned a midpoint weight, then lane-miles in each category were multiplied by the weight and divided by total lane-miles to create a single roughness score per state. States are ranked from 1 to 50 based on this index, with 1 representing the worst roads and 50 representing the best roads.

Condition categories. We categorized roads using FHWA thresholds: good (IRI under 95 inches per mile), acceptable (95 to 170) and poor (over 170). Percent poor and percent good reflect the share of urban lane-miles in each category.

Capital outlay per lane mile. We divided each state's total highway capital outlay from Highway Statistics Table SF-12A by total functional system lane miles from Table HM-60 to calculate capital outlay per lane mile. Capital outlay includes new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, bridge work and safety improvements. States are ranked from 1 to 50 based on capital outlay per lane mile, with 1 representing the highest spending and 50 representing the lowest spending.

Total Highway Spend. Each state's total expenditure on highway capital outlays, reported in millions of dollars from FHWA Table SF-12A.

Vehicle miles traveled. We used annual vehicle miles traveled by state from Table VM-2 to normalize spending and assess the relationship between spending per lane mile and road quality after accounting for how heavily each system is used.

Scope and limitations. Capital figures represent state highway agency spending and don't capture all local government spending on local streets and county roads, which may affect conditions drivers experience in some areas. Road condition data reflect 2023 measurements and may have changed since publication. Our Road Roughness Index focuses on urban Interstate, freeways and principal arterials, which typically experience higher traffic volumes and deterioration rates than rural roads. IIJA-funded projects still under construction won't yet be fully visible in roughness metrics. States with older infrastructure, harsh climates or higher traffic volumes require more spending to maintain the same quality level as states with newer roads or favorable conditions.

The table below shows MoneyGeek's full 50-state rankings with roughness scores, condition shares and highway spending across all states.